Pot limit poker is interesting, but it will be some time before a computer will be able to play No Limit poker... so much of it is social engineering. I wonder if some sort of facial recognition with mood detection would help?

Originally posted by krupnio:Pot limit poker is interesting, but it will be some time before a computer will be able to play No Limit poker... so much of it is social engineering. I wonder if some sort of facial recognition with mood detection would help?

What he said. Bots have been respectable at limit poker for a while but are useless at no-limit.

The researchers hope to enable it to start playing more advanced versions of poker, such as the very popular no-limits Texas Hold 'Em.

While it include the always popular "put up the house mortgage, take up drugs, and be found face down in the gutter 30 days later" feature?

Even with limit poker, the computer is playing under a different set of rules. There's no need to win or lose or to reserve some money or even to hold your reputation. Not to mention its ability to bluff every time.

Originally posted by krupnio:Pot limit poker is interesting, but it will be some time before a computer will be able to play No Limit poker... so much of it is social engineering. I wonder if some sort of facial recognition with mood detection would help?

The computer has a lot of advantages. It can calculate odds and estimate implied odds more exactly. It has perfect memory of all players past behavior. It won't fall prey to common biases of human behavior as well. Smart poker players often borrow similar techniques, for example using the position of the second hand on a clock to randomize choices.

Originally posted by krupnio:Pot limit poker is interesting, but it will be some time before a computer will be able to play No Limit poker... so much of it is social engineering. I wonder if some sort of facial recognition with mood detection would help?

It's really important to make a distinction here - this was Limit hold'em, not "Pot-limit"(which is much more akin to no-limit than limit). (the article failed to draw the distinction, but it is a critically important distinction). The key difference is that in Limit Hold'em, there are only 3 decisions possible on each betting round: call, raise, or fold - the bet sizing for each round is _fixed_. The article states that the in game Polaris played in here, the betting was "maxed" but that is ambiguous and misleading, because it was FIXED, and thus both minimized and maximized .

This form of poker is simpler for a computer than either pot-limit or no-limit because there is no bet-sizing to take into account, which has a massive impact on the game. Bet-sizing allows a player to affect the odds they are offering their opponent to continue in a hand by betting a larger or smaller amount. This can be used deceptively as well as mathematically. Thus the math involved is much more complex, and to get Polaris to play this game will take a great deal more effort.

Why is there such a huge difference between No Limit, Fixed and Pot Limited versions?

At first glance, they dont seem to matter much. It matters more what cards you have.

The difference is substantial because there are more possible choices involved. It's hard to fully explain here, because without experiencing the game it may be hard to fully conceptualize.

The notion that "it matters what cards you have" is the "first level thinking" (intuitively) that people think about when playing a game like poker. However beyond that the game is far deeper, because your actions are based on a number of factors, including (but not limited to) a) your opponent's possible [or likely] hands, b) your opponent's playing style, c) the structure of the game (antes and/or blinds and bet-sizing), d) the number of players in the game, e) the possible plays that can be in each decision and how that may influence further decisions. And the list goes on.

In fixed-limit poker, there are 3 choices in each betting round: call, fold, raise. Because of this, the size of pots (especially in a game with a limited number of players) is far less variable, it will be some multiple of betting-limits (e.g. in $1/$2 limit hold'em, this typically means bets of $1 on the first two rounds and $2 on the last two rounds). Because of this fixed-limit structure, there are more clear "mathematically correct" plays that can be made, and there is some limitation to the deception that can be used by raising the pot (which is limited to $1 or $2 per raise depending on the betting round), and raises are often limited to a maximum number per round.

However, in pot- and no-limit poker, the introduction of variable bet-sizing means you can bet any amount up to the size of the pot (pot-limit) or the amount you have in front of you in the game (no-limit). This variability introduces a host of new variables into the game - what is the ideal bet size given a situation? If you can raise any amount in front of you, you can put great pressure on your opponent (with or without "having the cards"), thus bluffing can take on a bigger role, and thus psychology can also be more effectively used. Suddenly the decisions to be made in each round go beyond "bet/fold/raise" because you can bet or raise a variable amount, and the different amounts will reflect a variation in the size of the pot, and the odds which you give you opponent to continue playing the hand. (This topic gets complex, I'll stop here).

For more information, look into a book like "The Theory of Poker". I think I've exhausted the level of complexity for this forum.